[Trickyguy]

Considering that we had to drop not one but TWO nuclear bombs on Japan to force their surrender, I'd say it's pretty damned obvious that we did the right thing in using nuclear weapons on their fanatical military. It was the only way to save lives that would have otherwise been lost during an invasion.

That's not what happened. The Japanese were trying to surrender, only they wanted to keep the Emperor. Turns out we allowed them to keep him, anyway. So, not only were the bombs unncessary, our insistence on Unconditional Surrender is what prolonged the war and lost the lives of untold American soldiers in the Pacific theater.

[TigersEye]

...The Japanese were trying to surrender, only they wanted to keep the Emperor.

Another tragic victim of publick edgeoocayshun pipes up.

[DoughtyOne]

And what type of surrender do you recommend for the nation that attacked in the first place, the surrender of a nation dictating terms?

Lordy!

[sheik yerbouty]

Actually, they surrendered in part because Hirohito did not want to be occupied by the Red Army, who had just crushed the Japanese forces in Manchuria, and were poised to invade.

[Aegedius]

The Japanese were trying to surrender.

The leftists in this country, along with the Japanese, have been spreading this lie since August 1945. It is to be expected that some people will actually believe it.

We had broken the Japanese code. We were listening to everything they were saying. Everything. If they were even considering surrender, we would have known it. They weren't.

[The Right Stuff]

You are wrong. I've seen some of the Pacific islands where the Japanese fought fanatical battles to the last man. Invading the home islands would have been catastrophic.